In high school, we had quite a few inspirational talks or assemblies. More often than not, these were based on the actions or thoughts of someone our age, who passed away long before his/her time. Now, I am not saying the morals of those talks were not worthwhile messages, because they were. “Spread happiness,” “give people a second chance,”and “live life with a smile” are all great messages. However, in conveying these morals, the presenter often portrayed the person he/she was trying to memorialize as a flawless individual with a great message that all of humanity should hear. Yet, is that truly an effective way to remember our loved ones? Are we lessening or potentially harming their memory by only epitomizing their good qualities?
Let’s think about it. Obviously not all the claims made about these people were true. “She smiled in all her pictures,” or “he had a premonition about the future” are very unlikely to be true. And by including statements like these in their presentations, speakers almost made the person they were memorializing seem un-human, perhaps even god-like. Is it truly an honor to a loved one’s memory to reduce the complex individual they were to a few perfect and enviable traits?
One of the reasons I like Randy Pausch’s The Last Lecture so much is that he does not portray himself as perfect. He derives lessons from his life, but includes his negative traits, such as not working well in groups, as well. He was, is, and will remain in our minds, a full, complex, and well-rounded human being.
I like comparing this to the concept of airbrushing, used in advertisements. Advertisers take images of real people and enhance certain parts — their breasts, abs, chins, etc. — to create an unreachable standard of beauty. What if we are enhancing the memory of our loved ones so much so that we are creating an unreachable standard of morality? Is that really the best way to keep his/her memory alive? Are we even remembering our loved ones, or are we remembering the perfect god we made him/her out to be?
Now, that is not to say that we shouldn’t remember our deceased loved ones. We should remember them and, without a doubt, remember their good qualities. But we should remember them as people, with all their flaws, misgivings, and mistakes as well. We should not reduce our loved ones into gods.
I really agree with this. I also feel that making these people seem perfect actually ends up detracting from their good qualities. This “airbrushing” makes it all seem unbelievable, so any good qualities that the person actually had are questioned. We’re all imperfect, and I think that makes us even better, because no matter what bad qualities we may have, our good qualities (hopefully) outshine them.
That is a great perspective, if they embellish one good quality, who is to say they didn’t embellish the whole story? Thanks Arnav! 🙂
So you’re saying advertisements are everywhere, eh? 🙂
k so one thing i find kind of weird about this comparison is that airbrushing is changing someone’s physical attributes to fit a certain standard, but eulogizing someone is more of highlighting the good things that a certain person did in his/her life or like certain characteristics that are enviable.
And I think that most people realize that the person being eulogized was not a perfect person, but the presenter is trying to pick out things in the dead person’s life that we could potentially learn from and try to emulate. And like those things can be inspiring. I get where the airbrushing comparison comes in, but looking at an airbrushed model doesnt invoke the same kind of inspiration or motivation that dead people eulogies do.
~l o l just kinda my thoughts xP
So I agree that there is a difference, but I feel, if you take eulogizing beyond a certain level, it has the same effect as airbrushing. One of two effects: 1) Makes us retreat into our shell, makes us feel inadequate about either our appearance or our personality, or 2) makes us reject the material as not an adequate reflection of reality, and we ignore it or begin to have negative feelings about it. Either way, the eulogy (when it is taken beyond a certain point) is not inspiring us, right?
And yeah, I agree, sometimes if it passes a certain level we begin to ignore it and like get annoyed by it, but it also depends on the person and how they internalize all the stuff in the eulogy. You can choose to reject it, or take it with a grain of salt.
Not just our relatives. Anytime anyone (famous) dies, they suddenly become way better than they were. Out of respect, no one mentioned John McCain’s lesser qualities at his funeral. I just wonder why we don’t focus on the positives of people until they die. When they’re alive we see the negative with perfect 20/20. When they’re dead.
That is a great point!
It actually relates to something I’ve been realizing since coming to Japan, which is that when we are immersed in a community we tend to see how we are different from each other. In every place and time I’ve lived, people have been divided (whether by their own decision or a larger system) into factions — ethnic factions, academic department factions, political factions, etc. And it is not until leaving the community that we realize we had more similarities than differences! In high school, I used to say I’m “Indian.” In Pittsburgh, I realized how “Californian” I am. And in Japan, I realized how “American” I am.
That process of only recognizing similarities once one has left a community seems related to only recognizing a person’s good qualities once they are gone, because neither can happen until one has some space or separation from the person/phenomenon they are reflecting on.
So the question becomes, what are some strategies we can use to see the positive qualities in people while they are alive, or the similarities we have with others while we are still together? To borrow from your pithy lessons Mr. Richards, what strategies can we use to “see the blue?”